Clough v. Bilancini
This text of 2014 Ohio 2722 (Clough v. Bilancini) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Clough v. Bilancini, 2014-Ohio-2722.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )
ALAN CLOUGH C.A. No. 13CA010399
Appellant
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JUDGE DARREL A. BILANCINI AVON LAKE MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellee CASE No. 13CVI00047
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: June 23, 2014
HENSAL, Judge.
{¶1} Alan Clough appeals a judgment of the Avon Lake Municipal Court that
dismissed his complaint against the Honorable Darrel Bilancini. For the following reasons, this
Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In 2010, Mr. Clough sued an insurance company in Avon Lake Municipal Court,
alleging it had incorrectly denied his claim for benefits. Following a trial to the bench, the court
found in favor of the insurance company. Mr. Clough appealed, but he was unable to obtain a
trial transcript because of the poor quality of the audio recording. This Court dismissed his
appeal after he failed to submit an appellate brief. Mr. Clough subsequently filed a small claims
complaint against his lawyer, but the municipal court found in favor of the lawyer. Mr. Clough
then sued Judge Bilancini, the municipal court judge, alleging that he had cited to the wrong
doctor’s report in his judgment in the insurance benefits case, failed to ensure that the court’s 2
recording equipment was working during the trial, and incorrectly ruled that his attorney had not
committed malpractice. An acting judge dismissed Mr. Clough’s complaint, concluding that
Judge Bilancini had judicial immunity. Mr. Clough has appealed, arguing that the municipal
court incorrectly dismissed his complaint.
II.
{¶3} Although Mr. Clough has not set forth an assignment of error in his appellate
brief, his argument is that the municipal court incorrectly dismissed his claims against Judge
Bilancini. He argues that, in exchange for the court costs that he paid in the insurance case, he
was entitled to receive a record of the trial. He also argues that the judge incorrectly determined
that his lawyer was not negligent for missing the filing deadline in his appeal. He further argues
that Judge Bilancini should have recused himself in the case he brought against his lawyer
because it involved one of the judge’s prior decisions. Mr. Clough requests a new trial against
the insurance company, a refund of his court costs and attorney fees, and a mandate requiring
courts to test their recording systems before hearings.
{¶4} As the municipal court noted, “[w]hen a judge acts in an official judicial capacity
and has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over a controversy, the judge is exempt from
civil liability even if the judge goes beyond, or exceeds, the judge’s authority and acts in excess
of jurisdiction.” Borkowski v. Abood, 117 Ohio St.3d 347, 2008-Ohio-857, paragraph one of the
syllabus. “Civil liability attaches only if the judge acts in absence of all jurisdiction.” Id.
“Actions taken by a judge that are determined to be in excess of jurisdiction, resulting from an
error in judgment, will not cause a judge to lose immunity.” Id. at ¶ 6.
{¶5} “The purpose of the doctrine of judicial immunity is ‘to preserve the integrity and
independence of the judiciary and to insure that judges will act upon their convictions free from 3
the apprehensions of possible consequences.’” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting Wilson v. Neu, 12 Ohio St.3d
102, 103 (1984). “The doctrine would fail to serve this essential purpose if a judge was subject
to liability for * * * an error of judgment * * *.” Id. Errors in law or judgment may be corrected
on appeal. Id., citing Newdick v. Sharp, 13 Ohio App.2d 200, 201-202 (4th Dist.1967).
{¶6} Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined
that Judge Bilancini has judicial immunity for the decisions he rendered in Mr. Clough’s
municipal court cases. To the extent that Mr. Clough is arguing that Judge Bilancini should have
recused himself, we note that this Court does not have authority to review that issue. State v.
O’Neal, 9th Dist. Medina No. 07CA0050-M, 2008-Ohio-1325, ¶ 15. Mr. Clough’s assignment
of error is overruled.
III.
{¶7} Because Judge Bilancini is immune from liability, Mr. Clough’s arguments are
without merit. The judgment of the Avon Lake Municipal Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Avon Lake
Municipal Court, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A
certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 4
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
JENNIFER HENSAL FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, P. J. CARR, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
ALAN CLOUGH, pro se, Appellant.
BRIAN M. SPIESS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
KIMBERLY VANOVER RILEY, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2014 Ohio 2722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clough-v-bilancini-ohioctapp-2014.